|
Post by malleodei on Dec 12, 2013 18:01:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 12, 2013 20:54:04 GMT -6
I'd say it's modestly troubling, in the sense that awareness increasing, fact checking and moral contemplation are necessary. As usual, when you lean on journalistic sources whose very raison d'être is the advancement of pro-life causes, you need to be very careful about drawing conclusions. The chief "provider of fact" in the article (i.e. the source of the statistics) is a group which exists expressly to oppose euthanasia. I'd be relatively more interested in the opinion of Dr. Saba, who fronts the Quebecois Coalition of Physicans for Social Justice. A quick perusal of their site confirmed that they are a broad based advocacy group without any particular axe to grind on euthanasia. However, it would be better yet to find some more reliable statistics about the actual experience in Belgium. Here you go: journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2010&issue=02000&article=00015&type=abstractI should be able to download the full article at work tomorrow if you're interested in a more complete report, but the abstract looks pretty reassuring in juxtaposition to the polemics of Mr Schadenberg. The issue is of great interest to me, so I may well pull it. The reason that I am interested in end of life issues, including euthanasia, living wills, palliative care etc, is that my 20 year practice of medicine has driven me to the inescapable conclusion that when it comes to terminal illness, we treat our animals with far more compassion than our loved ones. Most (yes, most) of cancer treatment is bullshit, driven by doctors who don't fully inform their patients either out of a desire to preserve hope or a profit motive, patients' irrational exuberance about the promises of treatment and relatives' inability to let go, even to the point of torturing their loved ones who are ready to die. This ought to be required reading: www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/your-money/how-doctors-die.html?_r=0…and The Bucket List ought to be required viewing for all adults while they are still healthy. In truly intractable suffering, irreversible dementia and terminal illness, euthanasia ought to be legal options. I choose this for myself, and I would not, out of deep compassion, withhold it from anyone else. I agree that safeguards must be strict, but a posture of no euthanasia whatsoever is brutal coercion masquerading as piety.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 13, 2013 7:37:51 GMT -6
I understand what you're saying about biased sources. I get that. I still find it very troubling, though. If you are able to down load it, can you email me a copy. I would be interested to read it as well. Thanks
However, I would disagree with you that euthanasia is ever an option. I realize that I am not in the medical field, so I am not really equipped to speak form the vantage of much knowledge here. All efforts should be taken to alleviate pain and suffering. As it is, Catholic teaching has never been that death should be avoided at any cost. However, there must be a balance between respect for the intrinsic dignity of the person, and euthanasia can never affirm that intrinsic dignity in the Christian worldview.
Here, I take euthanasia to mean direct and intentional steps to end the life of a person, as it's primary end. This is in contrast to passive measures in which death occurs as a secondary effect. One example would be an increasing dose of morphine to help alleviate pain, which may have the secondary effect of bringing about death. Alleviation of pain and suffering is sought, instead of intentionally causing death.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 13, 2013 12:34:27 GMT -6
Malleoguy said,
"However, there must be a balance between respect for the intrinsic dignity of the person, and euthanasia can never affirm that intrinsic dignity in the Christian worldview."
Can euthanasia affirm intrinsic dignity in the secular worldview? It seems to work well from where I'm sitting.
From my perspective intrinsic dignity has never been a Christian virtue. Why don't we legalize euthanasia for society as a whole and allow Christians to opt out. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.
Here's another idea - legalize euthanasia and let god sort everybody out.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 13, 2013 13:23:25 GMT -6
Well Steve, Society is going to what society is going to do. We are quickly becoming a post-Christian west where people ascribe to the name Christian in cultural affiliation only. I hold that being Christian puts one at odds with the culture in America and in the west, in general. At some point, it may be a real choice that a person has to make. IT will then, by necessity, become smaller and purer as Pope Benedict said, for many will fall away. That does nothing more than fulfill our own prophecies on the matter.
Perhaps we are approaching a time similar to the Roman empire where Christianity was the vast minority, afforded no significant status, and was actually more of a detriment to a person. Who knows what the future will bring, but I see this as a possibility (and you who know me around here know
The concept of euthanasia is really not new. It was tolerated in ancient times, just as exposing infants was, as well (and still is in places like China, where people look the other way where this happens).
I cannot control what you fools decide to do to devolve society.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 13, 2013 13:30:24 GMT -6
I understand what you're saying about biased sources. I get that. I still find it very troubling, though. If you are able to down load it, can you email me a copy. I would be interested to read it as well. Thanks However, I would disagree with you that euthanasia is ever an option. I realize that I am not in the medical field, so I am not really equipped to speak form the vantage of much knowledge here. All efforts should be taken to alleviate pain and suffering. As it is, Catholic teaching has never been that death should be avoided at any cost. However, there must be a balance between respect for the intrinsic dignity of the person, and euthanasia can never affirm that intrinsic dignity in the Christian worldview. Here, I take euthanasia to mean direct and intentional steps to end the life of a person, as it's primary end. This is in contrast to passive measures in which death occurs as a secondary effect. One example would be an increasing dose of morphine to help alleviate pain, which may have the secondary effect of bringing about death. Alleviation of pain and suffering is sought, instead of intentionally causing death. I don't really want to purchase the paper, but there is a decent chance that it is available through Ovid, our institutional subscription service. I'll try to get it tonight. I really don't understand how euthanasia can be off the table if we are interested in the "intrinsic dignity" of the person. Two patients--both have stomach cancer with metastases to the bone and liver. They are both nauseated, dizzy and in exquisite pain. They can still eat a little, but they cannot sleep, stand or even sit. There is no hope for recovery, but they will likely hold on for 2-3 weeks before they succumb. They are both in unimaginable misery, with just enough strength to open their hollow eyes and watch the room spin. Patient number one is a Catholic. Patient number two is a dog. Patient number two is eased to sleep and death, comforted by people who love him. Patient number two, as likely as not, will die in prolonged agony, quite possibly in a fit of vomiting when his exhausted family has stepped away for a few minutes to wash up or grab a quick meal. Which patient was treated in light of dignity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 14:45:50 GMT -6
I understand what you're saying about biased sources. I get that. I still find it very troubling, though. If you are able to down load it, can you email me a copy. I would be interested to read it as well. Thanks However, I would disagree with you that euthanasia is ever an option. I realize that I am not in the medical field, so I am not really equipped to speak form the vantage of much knowledge here. All efforts should be taken to alleviate pain and suffering. As it is, Catholic teaching has never been that death should be avoided at any cost. However, there must be a balance between respect for the intrinsic dignity of the person, and euthanasia can never affirm that intrinsic dignity in the Christian worldview. Here, I take euthanasia to mean direct and intentional steps to end the life of a person, as it's primary end. This is in contrast to passive measures in which death occurs as a secondary effect. One example would be an increasing dose of morphine to help alleviate pain, which may have the secondary effect of bringing about death. Alleviation of pain and suffering is sought, instead of intentionally causing death. I don't really want to purchase the paper, but there is a decent chance that it is available through Ovid, our institutional subscription service. I'll try to get it tonight. I really don't understand how euthanasia can be off the table if we are interested in the "intrinsic dignity" of the person. Two patients--both have stomach cancer with metastases to the bone and liver. They are both nauseated, dizzy and in exquisite pain. They can still eat a little, but they cannot sleep, stand or even sit. There is no hope for recovery, but they will likely hold on for 2-3 weeks before they succumb. They are both in unimaginable misery, with just enough strength to open their hollow eyes and watch the room spin. Patient number one is a Catholic. Patient number two is a dog. Patient number two is eased to sleep and death, comforted by people who love him. Patient number two, as likely as not, will die in prolonged agony, quite possibly in a fit of vomiting when his exhausted family has stepped away for a few minutes to wash up or grab a quick meal. Which patient was treated in light of dignity? I agree with everything you say and I hope that I have the courage and dignity to skip expensive and hopeless treatments if the opportunity arises. Your "must read" article is one of the most profound things I've read in a long time, as I think I mentioned when you first pointed it out several months ago. It is a lot harder for loved ones to authorize a spouse to die than it is to put a dog down though. That is why advance medical directives (living wills) are a good idea. None of this relates to genuine euthanasia of course. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 13, 2013 14:54:09 GMT -6
It is a lot harder for loved ones to authorize a spouse to die than it is to put a dog down though. Of course, but the underlying principle is the same…the needs of the patient take precedence over the needs of the family. That is why advance medical directives (living wills) are a good idea. None of this relates to genuine euthanasia of course. Sure it does. Principles of care, reasonable expectation and informed consent are at the heart of all end of life issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 15:32:54 GMT -6
It is a lot harder for loved ones to authorize a spouse to die than it is to put a dog down though. Of course, but the underlying principle is the same…the needs of the patient take precedence over the needs of the family. That is why advance medical directives (living wills) are a good idea. None of this relates to genuine euthanasia of course. Sure it does. Principles of care, reasonable expectation and informed consent are at the heart of all end of life issues. OK. I'm off for a while. My assistant just hit me with this breaking news. abcnews.go.com/US/students-shot-arapahoe-high-school-littleton-colo/story?id=21211883I can see the circling news helicopters from my office as I type this in emotional despair.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 13, 2013 17:36:55 GMT -6
Tragic. Whatever the solution is, I'm sure it's not gun control.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 13, 2013 19:33:15 GMT -6
Malleo,
How does martyrdom differ from euthanasia, especially in cases where the former is a choice between conversion or death? The Church reveres those who sacrificed their lives for the Christian cause(avoiding eternal punishment), yet Christianity considers assisted suicide an affront to the dignity of life. How is choosing to end one's life for god more dignified than choosing to end one's life for medical reasons?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 14, 2013 9:20:40 GMT -6
Malleo,
How was Jesus' crucifixion not a perfect example of assisted suicide?
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 14, 2013 12:01:02 GMT -6
FB, The entire problem is creating a comparison between a person and a dog. As an aside, I have observed many of my Facebook friends posting about animal cruelty, adopting pets, and how deserving these animals are. And some if the are pretty strongly pro choice. I find it it rather curious that they are not outspoken about children and adoption. That we find some equivalence, nowadays, between animals and people is very problematic, IMHO. Our popes are right on. Human life continues to be devalued, and it is becoming worse. That we even suppose that there is dignity in the direct taking of life is itself, the core problem.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 14, 2013 12:01:51 GMT -6
Malleo, How was Jesus' crucifixion not a perfect example of assisted suicide? It's not even possible to take you seriously when you post stuff like this.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Dec 14, 2013 13:17:57 GMT -6
Malleo, How was Jesus' crucifixion not a perfect example of assisted suicide? It's not even possible to take you seriously when you post stuff like this. Why not? It's an apt question considering that as God, Jesus presumably knew how he was to die and further knew that the whole point of his life was to become the ultimate sacrifice. It's a safe bet that a peaceful death in bed in his dotage was hardly an option.
|
|